3 ms·

Therefore, the judiciaries are not truly independent. That's like saying that, because you were brought up by your parents, you will always behave exactly as t

Therefore, the judiciaries are not truly independent. That's like saying that, because you were brought up by your parents, you will always behave exactly as they wanted you to, removing all agency. SCOTUS justices' decisions, against what their proponents desired, prove they work independently. They can be flawed, but that's why there's more than one. the CCP is by far the most popular party in China The CCP is the only party in china. Both China and the US, are in theory democracies No, they're not. And I'm not nit picking with the US is a Republic. It's that is a joke to even attempt to place China at the same level. So in China, to have effective absolute power, you need to control the CCP and discourage people from running as independents. In the US, to have effective absolute power, you need to control both the DNC and the RNC, and independents naturally cannot win. So in both cases, separation of power is theoretic. I don't even know where to start with this one. The CCP controls China. Maybe not down to the most local level, but almost. Nor in their wettest dreams the DNC/RNC would ever achieve the level of control and oppression the CCP has. And I'm pretty sure many on both sides wouldn't even allow it. the judiciary, executive and legislative are indirectly dependent because they are all dependent on the same parties. And back to square one. No. By a million miles. Not even close. With all its flaws, the US judiciary, and its Rule of Law, are orders of magnitude above the Chinese, if we can even start comparing apples to oranges.

khuey 6y ago
> The CCP controls China. Maybe not down to the most local level, but almost. The CCP controls China to the extent that China doesn't even have its own military, the party does.
sudosysgen 6y ago
>That's like saying that, because you were brought up by your parents, you will always behave exactly as they wanted you to, removing all agency. SCOTUS justices' decisions, against what their proponents desired, prove they work independently. They can be flawed, but that's why there's more than one. If your parents could swap your identity out for any of their choosing every decade or so, I would make the case, yes. >SCOTUS justices' decisions, against what their proponents desired, prove they work independently. They can be flawed, but that's why there's more than one. They rarely do, and party affiliation is by far the strongest predictor of voting. And even when they do vote against their proponents, they do so in points of ideological heterogeneity. In any case, there are also times when Chinese judges vote against the dominant will of the CCP, it is just quite rare, and is among points of ideological heterogeneity. >The CCP is the only party in china. Only in practice. There are multiple registered parties in China you can vote for, though the vast majority are under CCP control. About 20% of the congressional seats are held by independents, not members of the CCP nor any other party. >No, they're not. And I'm not nit picking with the US is a Republic. It's that is a joke to even attempt to place China at the same level. This is completely besides the point. China, in theory, is a democracy. In that, there are elections every so often, and you can run as a representative, and then vote for the president. So far, there have not been any reports of violation of electoral process. This is because the Chinese electoral system is flawed to confer massive amounts of power to the incumbent. In the same way, the US electoral system is flawed in that it completely destroys any power outside the two parties. Analysis of US political decisions show that popular will has a very slim influence on policy : https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/mgilens/files/gilens_and_page_2014_-testing_theories_of_american_politics.doc.pdf https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/mgilens/fi.... >I don't even know where to start with this one. The CCP controls China. Maybe not down to the most local level, but almost. Nor in their wettest dreams the DNC/RNC would ever achieve the level of control and oppression the CCP has. And I'm pretty sure many on both sides wouldn't even allow it. Good thesis, now let's try to prove it, shall we? If this was true, it should be possible for you to give me recent (last 100 years) examples of major decisions that were outside the control of both the DNC and RNC in both process and outcome. >And back to square one. No. By a million miles. Not even close. With all its flaws, the US judiciary, and its Rule of Law, are orders of magnitude above the Chinese, if we can even start comparing apples to oranges. Please evaluate claims on their merits. Are the judiciary, executive and legislative branches not dependent on the aggregate of the DNC and RNC, directly or indirectly?
- tripletao 6y ago
  > Please evaluate claims on their merits. Are the judiciary, executive and legislative branches not dependent on the aggregate of the DNC and RNC, directly or indirectly? The structure of the US government naturally creates a two-party system; but the reason why those two parties are the Democrats and Republicans (and not the Whigs and Libertarians or whatever) is that those two parties outcompeted all the others for votes. Minor parties are constantly trying to break through. They usually fail, though not always--we don't have Whigs anymore. But even when they fail, the major parties are constantly watching for this threat, and adjusting their positions in an effort to keep their dominance. The dominance of the DNC and RNC doesn't mean the people who control those two parties can do whatever they want; it just means those people want to keep their jobs, know the only way to do so is to behave in a way that wins elections, and are pretty good at figuring out what those behaviors are. That's probably not the best imaginable way to translate the will of the people into a government, but the path is clearly there. No remotely comparable path exists in the PRC. Finally, I believe you've misunderstood the paper you linked. Quoting: > As noted, our evidence does not indicate that in U.S. policy making the average citizen always loses out. Since the preferences of ordinary citizens tend to be positively correlated with the preferences of economic elites, ordinary citizens often win the policies they want, even if they are more or less coincidental beneficiaries rather than causes of the victory. In other words, let's say the elites want A, B, C, and D, and the average citizens want A, B, C, and not D. We actually get A, B, C, and D. Then the will of the elites has perfect explanatory power (which they've described using the word "cause", though obviously nothing here shows causality), and the will of the average citizens contributes no further information; but the average citizens are still getting most of what they want. It can't be otherwise, or else the average citizens would vote a third party in. That doesn't need to actually happen to affect policy--if the current major parties are run by skilled politicians who want to keep their dominance, then the threat is enough. At the margin, I do agree the two-party system gives the two incumbents considerable independent power--there's a coordination problem in choosing what third party to vote for, so an incumbent has to diverge significantly from the will of the people to lose. This is in no way comparable to the absolute power that the CCP enjoys over China, though.
- kelnos 6y ago
  > Are the judiciary, executive and legislative branches not dependent on the aggregate of the DNC and RNC, directly or indirectly? Yeah, but so what? That reduces to approximately "the judiciary, executive, and legislative branches are dependent on the aggregate of the American people"... which is exactly how it should be. Yes, I know that there are other minor parties, and I know that there are many, many people in the US who do not identify as Democrat or Republican (I'm one of them, even though I will generally only vote Democrat in national races). But it is true that the two major parties, when put together, represent the political desires of the vast majority of voters, to whatever order of approximation is realistically possible. The Chinese government, on the contrary, is controlled by the CCP, which is controlled by party leadership, which does not take any meaningful input from those who are not party leadership, inasmuch as the military and law enforcement apparatus supports them. You know, like any other authoritarian dictatorship.

khuey 6y ago

> The CCP controls China. Maybe not down to the most local level, but almost. The CCP controls China to the extent that China doesn't even have its own military, the party does.

sudosysgen 6y ago

>That's like saying that, because you were brought up by your parents, you will always behave exactly as they wanted you to, removing all agency. SCOTUS justices' decisions, against what their proponents desired, prove they work independently. They can be flawed, but that's why there's more than one. If your parents could swap your identity out for any of their choosing every decade or so, I would make the case, yes. >SCOTUS justices' decisions, against what their proponents desired, prove they work independently. They can be flawed, but that's why there's more than one. They rarely do, and party affiliation is by far the strongest predictor of voting. And even when they do vote against their proponents, they do so in points of ideological heterogeneity. In any case, there are also times when Chinese judges vote against the dominant will of the CCP, it is just quite rare, and is among points of ideological heterogeneity. >The CCP is the only party in china. Only in practice. There are multiple registered parties in China you can vote for, though the vast majority are under CCP control. About 20% of the congressional seats are held by independents, not members of the CCP nor any other party. >No, they're not. And I'm not nit picking with the US is a Republic. It's that is a joke to even attempt to place China at the same level. This is completely besides the point. China, in theory, is a democracy. In that, there are elections every so often, and you can run as a representative, and then vote for the president. So far, there have not been any reports of violation of electoral process. This is because the Chinese electoral system is flawed to confer massive amounts of power to the incumbent. In the same way, the US electoral system is flawed in that it completely destroys any power outside the two parties. Analysis of US political decisions show that popular will has a very slim influence on policy : https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/mgilens/files/gilens_and_page_2014_-testing_theories_of_american_politics.doc.pdf https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/mgilens/fi.... >I don't even know where to start with this one. The CCP controls China. Maybe not down to the most local level, but almost. Nor in their wettest dreams the DNC/RNC would ever achieve the level of control and oppression the CCP has. And I'm pretty sure many on both sides wouldn't even allow it. Good thesis, now let's try to prove it, shall we? If this was true, it should be possible for you to give me recent (last 100 years) examples of major decisions that were outside the control of both the DNC and RNC in both process and outcome. >And back to square one. No. By a million miles. Not even close. With all its flaws, the US judiciary, and its Rule of Law, are orders of magnitude above the Chinese, if we can even start comparing apples to oranges. Please evaluate claims on their merits. Are the judiciary, executive and legislative branches not dependent on the aggregate of the DNC and RNC, directly or indirectly?

tripletao 6y ago
> Please evaluate claims on their merits. Are the judiciary, executive and legislative branches not dependent on the aggregate of the DNC and RNC, directly or indirectly? The structure of the US government naturally creates a two-party system; but the reason why those two parties are the Democrats and Republicans (and not the Whigs and Libertarians or whatever) is that those two parties outcompeted all the others for votes. Minor parties are constantly trying to break through. They usually fail, though not always--we don't have Whigs anymore. But even when they fail, the major parties are constantly watching for this threat, and adjusting their positions in an effort to keep their dominance. The dominance of the DNC and RNC doesn't mean the people who control those two parties can do whatever they want; it just means those people want to keep their jobs, know the only way to do so is to behave in a way that wins elections, and are pretty good at figuring out what those behaviors are. That's probably not the best imaginable way to translate the will of the people into a government, but the path is clearly there. No remotely comparable path exists in the PRC. Finally, I believe you've misunderstood the paper you linked. Quoting: > As noted, our evidence does not indicate that in U.S. policy making the average citizen always loses out. Since the preferences of ordinary citizens tend to be positively correlated with the preferences of economic elites, ordinary citizens often win the policies they want, even if they are more or less coincidental beneficiaries rather than causes of the victory. In other words, let's say the elites want A, B, C, and D, and the average citizens want A, B, C, and not D. We actually get A, B, C, and D. Then the will of the elites has perfect explanatory power (which they've described using the word "cause", though obviously nothing here shows causality), and the will of the average citizens contributes no further information; but the average citizens are still getting most of what they want. It can't be otherwise, or else the average citizens would vote a third party in. That doesn't need to actually happen to affect policy--if the current major parties are run by skilled politicians who want to keep their dominance, then the threat is enough. At the margin, I do agree the two-party system gives the two incumbents considerable independent power--there's a coordination problem in choosing what third party to vote for, so an incumbent has to diverge significantly from the will of the people to lose. This is in no way comparable to the absolute power that the CCP enjoys over China, though.
kelnos 6y ago
> Are the judiciary, executive and legislative branches not dependent on the aggregate of the DNC and RNC, directly or indirectly? Yeah, but so what? That reduces to approximately "the judiciary, executive, and legislative branches are dependent on the aggregate of the American people"... which is exactly how it should be. Yes, I know that there are other minor parties, and I know that there are many, many people in the US who do not identify as Democrat or Republican (I'm one of them, even though I will generally only vote Democrat in national races). But it is true that the two major parties, when put together, represent the political desires of the vast majority of voters, to whatever order of approximation is realistically possible. The Chinese government, on the contrary, is controlled by the CCP, which is controlled by party leadership, which does not take any meaningful input from those who are not party leadership, inasmuch as the military and law enforcement apparatus supports them. You know, like any other authoritarian dictatorship.